Is anyone really surprised? The movie had such a weak premise to begin with. And starring Joel Edgerton a.k.a. the most boring actor working in Hollywood? With a relatively straight forward studio director?? That's just asking for trouble.

Rachel wrote:There were 8 other people in the auditorium at the showing I saw tonight. I was probably the only one in the audience who didn't get a senior discount. FWIW, one person was wearing a cowboy hat. One lady was asleep when we were filing out. Not surprising given the genre and the absence of marketing. I was honestly surprised to see that many people. I can’t see this getting a lot of word of mouth because there wasn’t a lot to recommend.

The thing is that the marketing problems doesn’t seem to be isolated to just this movie. As much as I completely adore Natalie Portman, the truth is that right now she’s just having big time issues marketing herself. I honestly don’t understand what she’s doing. It’s almost as if she’s reverted to doing college films out of UCLA with practically no target audience. It’s really bizarre.

This shit is marketing 101. If she’s doing two biopics, isn’t she supposed to market the first one as her own film and then market her second film as the Aranofsky biopic starring Natalie Portman? The Ginsburg film now looks like a complete marketing nightmare if it doesn’t have the same name recognition. It’ll be completely overshadowed. Unless she nails her performance as Jackie Kennedy then the Ruth Ginsburg movie will have no legs to stand on. There just won’t be an audience left. I mean what is she aiming for? Being such a good actress will only take her so far. She’s WAY BETTER than this.

Honestly don't know what you're going on about sometimes.

Marketing herself? Huh?

As always, she's taking films and projects that interest her. Her current slate (Planetarium, Jackie, Annihilation) is with 3 of the hottest up and coming directors around - if it was a Lifetime film, a supporting role in a Kevin Hart film, and the new Paul Haggis film then I'd share your concern. The Ginsburg film we'll have to wait and see who they get. There is no marketing for the Ginsburg film yet so why mention that at all?

You make a very common mistake, which is the overrating of star power. Can a star help to market a project significantly more than that of their peers? Sure, but it is very limited and only in certain roles.

So Sandy Bullock teaming with MM in The Heat is a home run. People loved the idea of that combination. Sandy riding the coattails of a tech masterpiece in Gravity, less certainty over how important she is to the success but nevertheless it works and she is as hot a property as she's ever been. She follows that up with something very middle of the road, that seems to play into her personality but ends up being a total failure - Our Brand Is Crisis. Does that mean there is no more audience for Bullock? No, it just means it didn't work this time.

You think people are following Natalie's career so closely that anyone would say "I saw her in a biopic, Jackie, a year ago and I didn't like it so now I'm not going to watch this completely different biopic"?

Things are not as grim as they look. I agree with that. Natalie Portman the actress will be fine. Natalie Portman the director will also be fine. Natalie Portman the producer will be not so fine. From here it looks like she's short about 300 bucks. That's a lot of money. Pretty much where I'm getting at.

Carlito Brigante wrote:Things are not as grim as they look. I agree with that. Natalie Portman the actress will be fine. Natalie Portman the director will also be fine. Natalie Portman the producer will be not so fine. From here it looks like she's short about 300 bucks. That's a lot of money. Pretty much where I'm getting at.

She didn't finance the film and her producing is mainly supportive and only on films she is working on. There are 7 production companies involved with JGAG. There were 8 on Hesher. 6 on No Strings Attached.

How about people? There are 30 producers on JGAG. 33 on Hesher. She is a full blown producer on both (not an executive producer as she was on No Strings, or a co-producer) but there were 7 full blown producers on each film.

achtung_natalie wrote:Is anyone really surprised? The movie had such a weak premise to begin with. And starring Joel Edgerton a.k.a. the most boring actor working in Hollywood? With a relatively straight forward studio director?? That's just asking for trouble.

Premise is such a minor point. It's all about execution and, being a visual medium, that largely comes down to the director. Who knows what the film would have been like if the original vision had been executed. It could have been the same story but with a more lyrical approach it could have been stunning. Or, if O'Connor had been on the project from day one, he could have potentially made something as strong as his other work.

Carlito Brigante wrote:Things are not as grim as they look. I agree with that. Natalie Portman the actress will be fine. Natalie Portman the director will also be fine. Natalie Portman the producer will be not so fine. From here it looks like she's short about 300 bucks. That's a lot of money. Pretty much where I'm getting at.

She didn't finance the film and her producing is mainly supportive and only on films she is working on. There are 7 production companies involved with JGAG. There were 8 on Hesher. 6 on No Strings Attached.

How about people? There are 30 producers on JGAG. 33 on Hesher. She is a full blown producer on both (not an executive producer as she was on No Strings, or a co-producer) but there were 7 full blown producers on each film.

That’s all true, but still find it interesting that of all the movies you mentioned you forgot the one movie that could be the big box office hit for her this year. That’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. That’s the movie that people really want to see, and more importantly, that’s also the movie that I want to see. All the artsy movies are cool. I love Terrence Malick. I’ve seen Badlands a hundred times, but lets face it, she still needs to appeal to the wider audience. Nobody gives a fuck about Lynne Ramsay other than the tiny fraction of isolated followers traveling around the whole festival scene. I’ll still take Jane Austen and zombies any day of the week.

It has not been a good opening in France, but with a quarter of cinemas has achieved an average per theatre three times more, reaching almost the USA box office. Hence the importance of a good marketing campaign...

By the way; on the sly Burr Steers film has a 60% approval rating on Rotten. If suddenly becomes a blockbuster would be a bizarre ending to all this

Carlito Brigante wrote:Things are not as grim as they look. I agree with that. Natalie Portman the actress will be fine. Natalie Portman the director will also be fine. Natalie Portman the producer will be not so fine. From here it looks like she's short about 300 bucks. That's a lot of money. Pretty much where I'm getting at.

She didn't finance the film and her producing is mainly supportive and only on films she is working on. There are 7 production companies involved with JGAG. There were 8 on Hesher. 6 on No Strings Attached.

How about people? There are 30 producers on JGAG. 33 on Hesher. She is a full blown producer on both (not an executive producer as she was on No Strings, or a co-producer) but there were 7 full blown producers on each film.

That’s all true, but still find it interesting that of all the movies you mentioned you forgot the one movie that could be the big box office hit for her this year. That’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. That’s the movie that people really want to see, and more importantly, that’s also the movie that I want to see. All the artsy movies are cool. I love Terrence Malick. I’ve seen Badlands a hundred times, but lets face it, she still needs to appeal to the wider audience. Nobody gives a fuck about Lynne Ramsay other than the tiny fraction of isolated followers traveling around the whole festival scene. I’ll still take Jane Austen and zombies any day of the week.

She really doesn't. She's a known name and brand now. Sure, appearing in huge movies would help that but she doesn't need that to have a strong career. Does joe average know who Marion Cotillard is? She just does great work in smaller films with the odd supporting turn in a Nolan film. Directors will want to work with her, even if she's not really a known quantity.

Which would you prefer, the next Natalie movie be a big critical success or a big financial success? It's easy for me, I'm a fan of films, not her accountant. If she never makes another film that cracks 50 million again, I wouldn't care, as long as there are some really great films in there.

She is a brand because of who she is, the weird and quirky girl who somehow still manages to be sexy. She's built her entire career riding on that persona. Got nominated twice playing those kind of characters. Won one of those. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is exactly that. Weird and quirky and sexy. If she deviates from that then her career might suffer. I don't mind if one of her movies flops or is a critical failure once in a while as long she's just being her.

Marion Cotillard is pretty much the same. She's the quintessential French beauty with an eccentric streak. That's her brand. She could break out to other kind of roles and even be successful, but sooner or later she has to come back to who she is. And she's also doing Assassin's Creed, a video game movie. I'm sure that's the last movie in the world she'd like to do, but like I said earlier, she needs to keep her audience.

Carlito Brigante wrote:She is a brand because of who she is, the weird and quirky girl who somehow still manages to be sexy. She's built her entire career riding on that persona. Got nominated twice playing those kind of characters. Won one of those. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is exactly that. Weird and quirky and sexy. If she deviates from that then her career might suffer. I don't mind if one of her movies flops or is a critical failure once in a while as long she's just being her.

Marion Cotillard is pretty much the same. She's the quintessential French beauty with an eccentric streak. That's her brand. She could break out to other kind of roles and even be successful, but sooner or later she has to come back to who she is. And she's also doing Assassin's Creed, a video game movie. I'm sure that's the last movie in the world she'd like to do, but like I said earlier, she needs to keep her audience.

I don't think Natalie has an on screen type. In fact, at times it feels like her approach to the characters she plays is too scattergun. Very early in her career there was definitely the wise beyond her years smart-arse vibe but these days I don't think people have a sense for a character type. Maybe you can pair some other characters like sad wife roles in Brothers and The Other Woman, but that's typical.

Are you really comparing Closer and Black Swan to PPZ? You couldn't big a film more different than those.

I completely disagree on that. Gradually she's grown into the big sister motherly kind of role. Interesting that it practically started with Star Wars, a movie she supposedly hates, but it's something that she's carried over to her other movies even to this day. She's been pregnant a bunch of times and she co stars with child actors on a regular basis. Still her best performances have always been her darkest roles, including Heat on that list, or her weirder ones, like the pink wig and so on.

Am I comparing her zombies movie with Black Swan and Closer? If it's successful then absolutely. That's the whole point. She has Annihilation coming out next year, so she's doing okay. Still a movie like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies with a hardcore fanbase is by far as much safer bet. I guess that the Abraham Lincoln vampire movie being so terrible might have turned her off or something, but even still.

Annihilation still looks like a far better movie with an infinitely superior cast. I give you that.

Carlito Brigante wrote:I completely disagree on that. Gradually she's grown into the big sister motherly kind of role. Interesting that it practically started with Star Wars, a movie she supposedly hates, but it's something that she's carried over to her other movies even to this day. She's been pregnant a bunch of times and she co stars with child actors on a regular basis. Still her best performances have always been her darkest roles, including Heat on that list, or her weirder ones, like the pink wig and so on.

Am I comparing her zombies movie with Black Swan and Closer? If it's successful then absolutely. That's the whole point. She has Annihilation coming out next year, so she's doing okay. Still a movie like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies with a hardcore fanbase is by far as much safer bet. I guess that the Abraham Lincoln vampire movie being so terrible might have turned her off or something, but even still.

I also generally prefer darker roles but that doesn't mean that is what she is known for. Besides, dark probably isn't a good word because something like Brothers isn't far off being as bleak and raw as Closer or Black Swan.

There is nothing dark about PPZ from what I can tell. It's a b grade horror comedy that by most accounts doesn't have any scares or laughs. I don't see how it's success would make it comparable to BS and Closer unless we're only looking at a film's box office success. It's probably closer to Your Highness than anything.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is really an action movie with a female lead, which is what she was aiming for along with Jane Got a Gun. Although technically a satire of the original novel, it's not meant to be neither straight comedy or horror. I've read the book and it's one of a kind weird, so I can see why she liked it. If it looks weird and sounds weird, then it has to be Natalie Portman. Career wise I always thought this movie should've been her top priority, but that's just me. At the very least she would've avoided the whole Jane Got a Gun mess.

" If it looks weird and sounds weird, then it has to be Natalie Portman"

Like I just don't even know how to respond to quotes like that. It's like you've taken a quote about David Lynch or David Cronenberg and applied it to Natalie. Maybe when you think weird you think Natalie but trust me, that's very much a personal take.

Weird as in unique. Not weird as in creepy. Her movies are unique. That's how I meant it. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is unique. There's nothing else like it out there. Jane With a Gun has never really felt like a unique story to me. It's really just a western. I'm somewhat intrigued by it because I loved Warrior, but as it is the guy never even had the time or resources to realize his full vision, so it doesn't even do justice. I still would've gone with the more unique story. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was that story. Jane With a Gun not so much to me.

But we're really going in circles now. It's too late anyway. At this point we're really talking about a 'what if' scenario had she decided to go the other way and starred in the Jane Austen movie instead of Jane Got a Gun.

Let's just state the fact that both movies were bad ideas and that Natalie needs to work with people who have balls to do something that is dangerous and challenging no matter what the prospects are commercially.